Slashdot Mirror
Domain: harrybrowne.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to harrybrowne.com.
Comments · 12
-
Re:Misleading BSD Article
Neither do Americans. If we did Harry Browne would be in office. The fact that we have a 20-40% federal income tax, along with all of the state taxes proves that we dont have a say in anything, our votes just go into a big circular file at the end of an election. The electoral college process is completely screwed up, congress is a mess (that is the real problem, not the president), and the lobby system is out of control. If the U.S. was a computer and the government was the operating system, my professional opinion would be to format and start over from scratch with something that actually works right instead of this you scratch my back while I stab yours piece of crap system that we have now. Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave, and Abraham Lincoln started it all. No, I'm not bitter.
-
Re:But who will do something?
From recent experience, it's because that's all it does well.
That's not exactly true at all. The US Government is a lot like Microsoft. Neither one of them do things out of some sinister plot, or megalomaniac agenda. In reality, both of them are just terribly, horribly, inexcusably incompetent.
American Libertarian. I love my country, I fear my government! We should have all voted for Harry Browne! -
Libertarians
This may be off-topic (actually it isn't, since there isn't a story), but why don't the Libertarians get as much press coverage as Ralph Nader or the Reform Party? I mean come on, the Libertarian party is the third largest party in the US, and it isn't even listed in Yahoo!'s 2000 Election section.
Have any of you Nader-voters actually read what Ralph Nader stands for? If you did, you wouldn't be so quick to vote for him.
Libertarian FAQ
Harry Browne, Libertarian for President
Thank you, have a nice day!
-- -
Re:My Flamebait Opinion
The president cannot enact tax legislation--only the legislature can do that.
True. But if a president consistently vetos legislation that spends tax money unconstitutionally, and makes that unconstitutionality crystal clear to the people of these United States, the legislature will eventually have to cave in and follow the Constitution. It may take a year or two, but it would happen.How many seniors (that's your grandma and grandpa) would be on the street, dying because they don't have ANY money now to try and buy drugs. Who care about Drug Plans if you don't have ANY money?.
Please ask yourself the question: "How did these seniors and disadvantaged get into a situation where they 'don't have ANY money?'" You'll have to include yourself in at least one answer, since it's your grandma and grandpa who need your support. Why should you force some struggling family with four kids to support your grandma and grandpa? Do you have so little regard for them that you'd prefer to have the government go out with its guns in hand and stick up your neighbors for the money so that you can relax and forget about your ancestors? I hope not.And as for the disadvantaged, wouldn't you rather that they be taken care of by voluntary charities which really have their best interests at heart (get off the charity and become productive on their own) rather than some government social worker whose biggest incentive is to have as big a client list as possible?
And furthermore, are you proud of having your taxes used to destroy the self-worth of most of the disadvantaged who stoop to taking forced charity from the government, and who thus stop trying to become independent because they come to believe they are incapable of independence?
If you think you can, I am shocked at your naivety.
Besides the fact that you seem incapable of spelling a word imported from the French, whatever happened to the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?" Have you given up on the possibility of getting rid of the "infrastructure (or cruft, whatever)" and now just lie down in the street and let the politicians run you over?The only insanity that I see here is the one that gets covered by the definition: "Insanity is doing the same things over and over again even though you get the same bad result every time." I'm tired of insanely voting for the same old candidates from the Republican-Democrat party who consistently and continually increase the size, intrusiveness, and cost of government.
The only sane vote is for Harry Browne, who consistently and constitutionally guarantees that government size, cost and intrusiveness will shrink under his administration.
-
Re:Something to point out...
Freedom is better than pseudo-socialism. Vote Republican.
Isn't that a reason to vote Libertarian, not Republican? In my opinion, that three Republicans sponsored this bill (along with the Democrat) might as well be coincidence, as it seems like both major parties are singing the same tune. If you really care strongly about Freedom vs. Socialism, either vote Libertarian or vote Socialist -- don't fool yourself into thinking that the Republicans are the protectors of our liberties any more than the Democrats are.
-
Where's Harry Browne?
Seems that nobody remembers Harry Browne, the Libertarian party candidate, who has unbelievably managed to stick to the issues.
Nader's entire career has been an attempt to assassinate whoever is in power. He's made all his political capital through the failures of others. He insists that big corporations are the problem with America without compellingly proving that there is a problem with America.
The Republicans and Democrats have been tearing at each other for quite some time. Fact is that there isn't much difference between the two. One supports gun control, the other wants to reduce abortions. That's about it. Yes, I know there's a large difference in their budgets, but that gets passed through congress, and they'll only be able to change the percentages a bit.
So, what's left? Character assassination. If they truly had anything new or anything different, they'd be able to say, 'look at this issue', but instead, they are reduced to ribbing each other. It's pathetic, really.
(Shameless plug) Harry Browne and the libertarians have a platform that is neither radical nor new; it is what the constitution originally was intended to do. Jefferson is the origination of the Libertarian philosophy; he wrote the constitution. Although this isn't new, it does get back to the idea of only fixing problems where they actually exist and allowing the greatest personal freedom otherwise, which is what allows the giant strides in technology this country has seen. (/Shameless plug)
-
Re:If you really want to vote against censorship..I've recently found that I was not a good fit for the two major parties, and when I found the Libertarian Party, I saw why. It is a pretty simple view. If it is not in the Constitution, they can't do it. The key phrase is "The govenment shall make no law".
Places to check for more info:
-
Re:This was rumored for awhileNormally, I'd unsult you with "read the fucking story before commenting", but it was a pretty long and pretty technical article.
The problem is, that the implementation of the additional key in the new format for storing keys (which is to say the physical layout of the key or 'certificate' file), isn't in a signed portion. That's the whole problem. You can change it (inserting your own key) and it doesn't change the fingerprint.
The thing I can't decide is whethere it was pure incompetence in the design of the new certificate layout, or if it was an intentional for this very purpose. I think NAI had better come up with some pretty satisfying explanations or no right-minded person will ever trust their 'security products' again.
Makes me glad I still have my old 2.62 code and keyrings laying around... now.. to get the revocations of all my newer keys pushed out to the key servers....
----------------------------------------------
The war on drugs may be over soon.
On my first day in office I will pardon everyone who has been convicted of a non-violent federal drug offense - Harry Browne - Libertarian presidential candidate
-
Re:How about READING the story?Problem is there are 9 machines around the house, and some may have the incoming port set to something nonstandard. I was hoping to learn some clever way to block it, whatever the port.
----------------------------------------------
The war on drugs may be over soon.
On my first day in office I will pardon everyone who has been convicted of a non-violent federal drug offense - Harry Browne - Libertarian presidential candidate
-
Re:How about READING the story?Not a dumbass question. I've seen similar machines used as dedicated routers supplied by point to point business cablemodem providers.
It would be interesting to see some simple benchmarks that would validiate such use.
As far as the OS goes, slashdot's 'what we run' article cited them as using FreeBSD (or was it OpenBSD... NetBSD?) because of ipfilter - supposedly better and simpler to configure than ipchains. I'm using a linux box and IP_MASQ for my home network, but have been thinking of switching to xxxBSD and ipfilter, maybe using an old 486 laptop.
Does anyone have ipchains rules for blocking incoming napster requests? One way cable modems (33.6 upstream) bog down with even 1 or 2 napster users pulling stuff off my machines, and my wife keeps inadvertantly turning on file sharing. I don't want to ban napster, just prevent users from sharing files.
----------------------------------------------
The war on drugs may be over soon.
On my first day in office I will pardon everyone who has been convicted of a non-violent federal drug offense - Harry Browne - Libertarian presidential candidate
-
Re:haha DougI thought VPN's, were a way of extending a net. I have VPN access to my office's inernal NT domain via a VPN.
I don't think that's the same thing as me sharing my cable modem among my 8 computers in my house, using Linux IP Masquerading.
I can understand how they might get greedy and want extra money for additional machines. I think many of us also violate various TOS agreements by actually doing work over the link, but not paying their 'business customer' rates.
I just hope they never get around to traffic quantity based charges. Imagine how pissed we'll be about spam then.
----------------------------------------------
The war on drugs may be over soon.
On my first day in office I will pardon everyone who has been convicted of a non-violent federal drug offense - Harry Browne - Libertarian presidential candidate
-
Re:WHY the net is exemptIt's called "selective enforcement," and it's one of the reasons I'm a Libertarian. You see, the government can pile up unenforcable law after unenforcable law, until it becomes impossible even for lawyers to fully understand what is or is not against the law. Heck, with this model, they can even put up laws that contradict each other.
The key to making this model is that the police will then only enforce the law when it is politically expedient or profitable. The trouble with that is it can lead to a police state, in which the police can harrass the general population on a whim and then back it up with the huge numbers of ridiculous laws we've got.
I used to live in New Jersey, and people from NYC would come there to shop, because the taxes were lower. Well, someone in New York government came up with the bright idea of sending cops into New Jersey mall parking lots and searching for New York plates. Later they would send threatening letters to the people who were shopping in the New Jersey stores saying, "You still owe New York sales tax and you'd better pay it!"
This, of course caused friction between NJ and NY, and was eventually dropped (I think, I haven't been back in a while, it was back when Florio was governor of NJ.) Of course, the original reason that interstate commerce was supposed to be exempt from taxation was to help keep the country united so you wouldn't have a bunch of little wars between individual states, and its worked pretty well for years (well, except for a few little altercations in the past.)
It is idiotic for the Federal government to allow individual states to tax the Internet this way, because the Internet is a national and International resource. The Federal government is supposed to be responsible for things which fall into the catagory of national. Personally, I don't think there is any pressing need to tax Internet commerce, but with all the hype about the Internet goldrush it is definitely going to happen. The rational way to handle it is on the national level, not the state level.
Of course, I'd rather we didn't get these wonderful new taxes, but then I'd rather Harry Browne would be the next president rather than George Bush or Al Gore.